NOAA announces 2006 warmest year on record for US

[chogan]

I image this is not news to most of you, but the NOAA homepage lead story today is that, by a small margin, 2006 is the warmest year on record in the US contiguous 48 states.

http://www.noaa.gov/

[tripp]

Which will hopefully bring this about more quickly.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 10 2007, 06:40 PM) [snapback]373906[/snapback]</div>

Which will hopefully bring this about more quickly.
[/b]

Interestingly, it also means this:

"The unusually warm temperatures during much of the first half of the cold season (October-December) helped reduce residential energy needs for the nation as a whole. Using the Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI—an index developed at NOAA to relate energy usage to climate), NOAA scientists determined that the nation's residential energy demand was approximately 13.5 percent lower than what would have occurred under average climate conditions for the season."

[tripp]

What about the summer months though?

[chogan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 10 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]373921[/snapback]</div>

Interestingly, it also means this:

"The unusually warm temperatures during much of the first half of the cold season (October-December) helped reduce residential energy needs for the nation as a whole. Using the Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI—an index developed at NOAA to relate energy usage to climate), NOAA scientists determined that the nation's residential energy demand was approximately 13.5 percent lower than what would have occurred under average climate conditions for the season."
[/b]

I guess we should be thankful for whatever we can get. If I understand their index correctly, this translates to about a 1% reduction in total US energy consumption (if not offset by other changes such as higher AC use in the summer). That's a sizeable impact -- about equal recent average annual growth in US fossil fuel use.

I was going to look into their model, because it seems hugely disproportionate that a 2 degree F deviation in temp would reduce energy use by 13.5%. I mean, that's ludicrously leveraged. But I got it -- it's surely due to high US East Coast population density, particularly in the New England region. So, warmth there has an effect on fuel use (population) that is disproportionate to land area. The average square mile of the US was 2 degrees warmer. The average US person was much more than 2 degrees warmer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 10 2007, 11:00 PM) [snapback]373952[/snapback]</div>

What about the summer months though?
[/b]

I just looked that up. Looks like total fuel use for US space cooling is about a third of that for space heating. So any offset that way ought to be modest. Per my prior post, I think it's all about a warm East Coast winter -- lots of people who normally burn lots of fuel to stay warm.

[TimBikes]

One also has to wonder about the meaning of this against a backdrop of a an El Nino, not to mention cooling ocean and given the fact that ocean heat content is a much better of the planet's thermodynamic state (see: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2007...obal-averaged-s urface-temperature-trend-to-diagnose-global-warming-and-cooling/)

[F8L]

Ohh ohh, conflicts between Hansen's and Willi's data. My guess is aerosols!

[chogan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 11 2007, 01:31 AM) [snapback]374012[/snapback]</div>

One also has to wonder about the meaning of this against a backdrop of a an El Nino, not to mention cooling ocean and given the fact that ocean heat content is a much better of the planet's thermodynamic state (see: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2007...obal-averaged-s urface-temperature-trend-to-diagnose-global-warming-and-cooling/)
[/b]

Well, I wouldn't focus on that single statistic on energy use, and then use that to change the topic. That seems a bit of a non sequitur to me (if heating oil demand, then ocean temperature). The news is that this is (by a small margin) a new record for US land temperature.

The reduction in fossil fuel use is interesting because it was quirkily large, disproportionate to the temperature change. But the general principle -- the impact of degree days on heating demand -- is common knowledge and my understanding is that it's factored into everbody's thinking already. Every US utility uses it to forecast demand now. So the fact of lower fuel use in a warm winter is not news. The only interesting bit is that this year the impact was large.

But even that, if you look at time series data on US fossil fuel consumption, you'll see that growth varies from year to year, so that this theoretical 1% drop is within bounds of normal annual fluctuation. Stuff happens. A 1% downward fluctuation in fossil fuel use would be welcome but not unprecedented. A good recession would get us an even larger drop. Probably ditto for an oil price spike. And, like the US land record, our actual (as opposed to predicted) use will soon be a known, hard datum. The US EIA puts those data out in a fairly timely fashion. So we'll shortly see, all things considered, what actual US fossil fuel use growth was in 2006, versus the predicted partial impact of the warm weather. Could be that the unwinding of the oil price spike more than offset it. But no point in speculating when the actual observation will soon be available.

In any case, to allow you to change the subject with your non sequitur, from what I've read of the ocean temp debate, it a) coincided with a change of instrumentation and b) at present, reflects a downtick that has not broken through the otherwise rising trend. In other words, if it's true, it's not a lower low, it's at present best classified as fluctuation within the existing range of normal variation. The US land record, by contrast, is a) a solid and relatively undisputed piece of information, and b) continues an established pattern of higher high and higher lows, resulting in a reading above all previous weather records. Understanding that El Nino results in a warmer winter *here* as opposed to everywhere, and understanding that more frequent and stronger El Nino events are a likely consequence of global climate change, I would still, on balance, consider yesterday's news to be news of some consequence. The recent trend toward higher highs in US land temps continues. The previous (1998) record has been broken. I still consider that a significant bit of news even when put into the context of all the exisiting information on climate change.

[tripp]

More frequent and more intense el ninos are a bad thing. We don't want that, not here in the US.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 11 2007, 04:50 AM) [snapback]374040[/snapback]</div>

Well, I wouldn't focus on that single statistic...

I would still, on balance, consider yesterday's news to be news of some consequence. The recent trend toward higher highs in US land temps continues...
[/b]

You said it well - I wouldn't focus on a single statistic. The news may or may not be of consequence - until we understand the causal factors. El Nino for one, a jet stream that is not flowing as far south as normal for another. Are these caused by GW? Maybe, maybe not.

And the single statistic ignores that 2006 also had:
- a January with the lowest temperatures in Moscow / Eastern Europe in nearly 30 years
- Central Russian annual temperature anomalies of 2-3 degrees C below average (for a land area far much larger than the 48 US states)
- Eurasian snow extent the greatest ever on record
- a significant coldwave over the Indian subcontinent

These were balanced by warmer than usual weather in the US, Brazil, Australia and Western Europe.

So is the "single statistic" about the US meaningful? Maybe, maybe not.